O R D E R
This appeal under Section 116-B of the Representation
of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the 'Act') arises
from
the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka made on October
27, 1994 in Election Petition No.3 of 1991. The appellant
had
filed his nomination as a Scheduled Caste candidate to
the Bidar-1 (SC) Parliamentary Constituency for the 9th Lok
Sabha on April
26, 1991. It was rejected by the Returning
Officer by his proceedings dated April 27, 1991 finding that
he is a Verrashiva Jangamma
and that, therefore, he is not a
Beda Jangamma, which is item 19 of the Presidential
Notification in relation to the State
of Karnataka. He filed
the election petition in the High Court, which was dismissed
by the aforesaid judgment. Thus this appeal.

Shri N.D.B. Raju, learned counsel for the appellant,
contended that the appellant was Beda Jangamma. His father
was the
President of Beda Jangamma Association. He had the
benefit of contesting the elections as a member of Beda
Jangamma. The finding
of the High Court that he is not Beda
Jangamma is not correct. He contends that among the
Lingayaths, there are various
sub-castes. Though, as a fact,
it was found that the appellant's sub-caste is Veerashiva,
in fact, it is only a Beda Jangamma.
His father used to
abopt begging which the Beda Jangamma caste would do.

Consequently, the appellant cannot be denied of the status
as a Beda Jangamma. He also sought to place strong reliance
on the
judgment of the civil Court, Ex P-14, in Misc.No.75
of 1987, made on February 26, 1988 in which the Appellant
therein was held
to be Beda Jangamma and that, therefore,
the findings of the High Court are incorrect. Having
considered the evidence, we
find that there is no force in
the contention.

It is seen that under Article 34(1) of the
Constitution, the Presidential Notification is conclusive
subject
to the amendment under clause (2) of Article 341. In
1976, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act had
been made. Admittedly,
under item No. 19, in relation to the
State of Karnataka, Beda Jangamma or Budaga Jangamma are
declared as Scheduled Castes.
As a fact, the finding
recorded by the High Court is that the appellant belongs to
Veerashiva Lingayath Community and he is
a Jangamma. The
question, therefore, is; whether Veerashiva Lingayath would
be considered to be a Scheduled Caste (Beda Jangamma)
within
the notification issued by the President? It is settled law
that the courts cannot give any declaration that the status
with synonymous names of castes claimed by the party is
conformable to the names specified in the Presidential
Notification
issued under Article 341 of the Constitution.

The finding recorded by the High Court after exhaustive
consideration of evidence including the judgment of the
civil Court
on which strong reliance was placed, is that the
appellant is a Veerashiva Lingayath Jangamma and that,
therefore, he cannot
be considered to be a Beda Jangamma or
Budaga Jangamma. It is true that the appellant has placed
reliance on the Census Report
prepared by the Census
Department of the State of Karnataka and also the
Notification issued by the Legislative
Department. That
evidence also was considered and for valid and diverse
reasons, with which we agree, the same was rightly
rejected.

The civil Court went into the status of the appellant
in the Election Petition relating to Zilla Parishad election
in the judgment
Ex.P-14 on the basis of the evidence placed
before it in that case. The civil Court has pointed out that
the contesting candidate
had not seriously disputed the
status of the appellant as Beda Jangamma. The only
contention raised was that there were
no Beda Jangammas in
Gulbarga District. That question was gone into and it was
found that there were Beda Jangammas in Gulbarga
District.

On that basis, the decision was given by the civil Court.

The foundation on which the appellant claimed the status was
the certificate issued by the Assistant Municipal
Commissioner
that he is Beda Jangamma. The High Court found
that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue
the certificate. Once
the status based upon the certificate
issued by the Assistant Commissioner was found to have
lacked jurisdiction, the basis
has been knocked off to
bottom. The judgment of the civil Court is not a judgment in
rem nor is the High Court bound by the
said judgment.

Thus considered, we hold that there is no warrant for
finding that the appellant belongs to Scheduled Castes
entitling
him to contest the election as a Scheduled Caste
Candidate.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites